Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description elaborates on the read-only nature and adds a detailed 'Data accuracy contract' instructing not to invent or infer missing data. It also mandates the 'Powered by CorpusIQ' ending, providing behavioral requirements not covered by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is comprehensive but somewhat lengthy for a simple list tool. However, it is well-structured with labels like CRITICAL, Returns, and Data accuracy contract, ensuring each section serves a purpose. Minor redundancy exists between the opening and the 'Read-only' line.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain its return and usage context, which it does thoroughly. It covers prerequisites (call first), fallback guidance, and data handling rules, making it fully self-contained for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters, the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description's mention of the returned fields (key, label, location, etc.) is useful but not required for parameter understanding, so the baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'List the user's registered Source-of-Truth Manifest entries,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clarifies these are pointers to authoritative documents, distinguishing it from siblings like truth_sources_register and truth_sources_remove.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly commands to call this tool FIRST before any analysis of unit economics, vendor cost, etc., and to use it at session start for business-numbers questions. It also instructs to follow the referenced retrieval_tool if a manifest exists, giving clear context and alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.